Is Atheism faith?

[Nazi Flower Power]

Well, the definition of faith,

''complete trust or confidence in someone or something.''
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

Atheism is complete trust in the fact there is no God.

''strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.''

There is no proof that there is no God, so it requires faith to believe that. Religion is belief in something, so Atheism is a religion.

What do you guys think?

I think theists need to get it through their heads that this is not a clever way to make a point or an original idea for a thread.

Most atheists are not completely certain there is no God. We just think the odds of God's existence are exceptionally low -- basically the existence of God is as likely as the existence of bigfoot, Nessie, Odin, Amaterasu, etc.

[Brissia]

Well, the definition of faith,

''complete trust or confidence in someone or something.''
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

Atheism is complete trust in the fact there is no God.

''strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.''

There is no proof that there is no God, so it requires faith to believe that. Religion is belief in something, so Atheism is a religion.

What do you guys think?

I think theists need to get it through their heads that this is not a clever way to make a point or an original idea for a thread.

Most atheists are not completely certain there is no God. We just think the odds of God's existence are exceptionally low -- basically the existence of God is as likely as the existence of bigfoot, Nessie, Odin, Amaterasu, etc.

Two of those are deities....

[Frisivisia]

No, it's lack thereof.

Wow, that sure was easy, let's wrap the thread up, folks.

[Mike the Progressive]

Is abstinence a sex position?

Wrong question to ask the majority of Generalites...

No. But it can be though when people think the world's woes can be cured by the absence of religion. At that point, it becomes blind faith in the absolute evil of religion and the absolute goodness of humanity.

[Aurora Novus]

Do Athiests have faith? In a sense, yes. All people do. They're called properly basic beliefs.

But is Atheism, itself, a faith? No. It's based on reason and evidence, or in some cases, a lack there of. An atheist is not an atheist because they "feel" there is no god, or "believe" there is no god. They are an atheist, because they can disprove specific claims about specific gods, and do not see serious evidence to suggest the existence of other gods. They see no reason to believe, so they do not believe.

That is not faith. That is reason.

[Seshephe]

It blows my mind how these threads can keep going for so long...

[Huang-di Union]

I'm not even remotely interested in posting a response.

[Menassa]

It blows my mind how these threads can keep going for so long...

When people start asking questions about good and evil....

[Cannot think of a name]

It blows my mind how these threads can keep going for so long...

If you're old enough to remember record players (or, you know...been around record players...it's not like the things vanish in the presence of younger people...) it's not that remarkable. The record gets a nick in it, the needle skips and then just plays the same bit of the record over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

[Seriong]

It blows my mind how these threads can keep going for so long...

It's mostly because we can attract wackos, like the person saying anything is in fact everything, even when the two are logically exclusive to one another.

[Cannot think of a name]

Is abstinence a sex position?

Wrong question to ask the majority of Generalites...

No. But it can be though when people think the world's woes can be cured by the absence of religion. At that point, it becomes blind faith in the absolute evil of religion and the absolute goodness of humanity.

No one believes this.

[New Connorstantinople]

What i never understood was how an atheist who claims to not believe in the existence in a supreme entity could so zealously attempt to disprove it to a peaceful individual. If they truly did not believe in a God or gods, wouldn't they simply not care? This is why to me it sometimes appears to be an underlying cause to their beliefs rather than just "reason" or "science". If you profess your beliefs with the gusto of a southern black pastor, to me it seems like a belief system rather than the lack of. perhaps not a religion, but a faith with just as much dedication and zeal as any of the major religions.

A surprising number of atheists aren't zelously attempting to prove/disprove anything. You just don't notice them (indeed, they may even attend your local church/chapel/synagogue/mosque/meeting-house or whatever...). You may see me declaring my atheism (of the small-a, implicit, soft, weak, agnostic type... whatever qualifier you prefer I add) only in context of fairly declaring my position when I'm arguing the semantics, or explaining how some "proof" (for either position) isn't actually proof.

I will never tell you that God (by whatever name or substance) or gods (in pantheon) do not exist. However, I will argue vehemently that the rainbow (for example) is absolutely not proof for the existence of your particular deity of choice. I won't deny that He could possibly exist and have made sure that the rainbows exist (in amongst every other physical phenomena you might mention) either deliberately or maybe just as a side-effect part of how He set up the universe.

This is the difference between the Faithful and me. They may see a rainbow and consider it as evidence of something. I see a rainbow and find it an aesthetically pleasing and and interesting thing. But I don't see it as either evidence or counter-evidence regarding the existence of a Higher Being, and would not present it as either. (But obviously specifically not the former.)

I'd argue against both extremist points of view. Although it seems that the 'faithful' often seem to be more in need of being argued-against. (Not all faithful, just those that bring "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true" style argumentation to the fore... I don't mind people having faith, merely those that prop their faith up (out of necessity?) with erroneous logic.)

You... I like you.

[Frisivisia]

A surprising number of atheists aren't zelously attempting to prove/disprove anything. You just don't notice them (indeed, they may even attend your local church/chapel/synagogue/mosque/meeting-house or whatever...). You may see me declaring my atheism (of the small-a, implicit, soft, weak, agnostic type... whatever qualifier you prefer I add) only in context of fairly declaring my position when I'm arguing the semantics, or explaining how some "proof" (for either position) isn't actually proof.

I will never tell you that God (by whatever name or substance) or gods (in pantheon) do not exist. However, I will argue vehemently that the rainbow (for example) is absolutely not proof for the existence of your particular deity of choice. I won't deny that He could possibly exist and have made sure that the rainbows exist (in amongst every other physical phenomena you might mention) either deliberately or maybe just as a side-effect part of how He set up the universe.

This is the difference between the Faithful and me. They may see a rainbow and consider it as evidence of something. I see a rainbow and find it an aesthetically pleasing and and interesting thing. But I don't see it as either evidence or counter-evidence regarding the existence of a Higher Being, and would not present it as either. (But obviously specifically not the former.)

I'd argue against both extremist points of view. Although it seems that the 'faithful' often seem to be more in need of being argued-against. (Not all faithful, just those that bring "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true" style argumentation to the fore... I don't mind people having faith, merely those that prop their faith up (out of necessity?) with erroneous logic.)

You... I like you.

Nice contribution, and an original comment too!

[New Connorstantinople]

alright, noticing the atheists here, i have a question. this question is not meant to be a "see! you're wrong!" argument, rather i honestly wish to know the response from the atheist community.
If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, would it not take a supernatural being to create the universe?

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but the singularity that existed before the Big Bang contained everything that today forms the universe, under a compression that is unfathomable, and in the end, it couldn't hold together anymore.

But wouldn't that still be considered matter, matter that had to be created?
(Again, not attempting to disprove, rather curious.)

[The Scientific States]

No, it's lack thereof.

Wow, that sure was easy, let's wrap the thread up, folks.

It would be that easy, if we didn't have edgy teens trying to sound philosophical, to prove that atheism is is faith.

[Twilight Imperium]

Wrong question to ask the majority of Generalites...

No. But it can be though when people think the world's woes can be cured by the absence of religion. At that point, it becomes blind faith in the absolute evil of religion and the absolute goodness of humanity.

No one believes this.

I admire your optimism, and am envious of your naiveté.

[Jamjai]

cool story bro

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

There is no proof that there is no God

Of course there is.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

alright, noticing the atheists here, i have a question. this question is not meant to be a "see! you're wrong!" argument, rather i honestly wish to know the response from the atheist community.
If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, would it not take a supernatural being to create the universe?

The conservation of mass just means that when a chemist or a physicist does an experiment, the mass stays the same and never ends up being less or more than the original mass. It's a law about what we do with matter, not some actual limit on the creation of matter itself.

[Zottistan]

There is no proof that there is no God

Of course there is.

I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind.

[Menassa]

Of course there is.

I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind.

You'd like to hear proof that there is no God?

[The Scientific States]

There is no proof that there is no God

Of course there is.

No, there isn't. There is no "proof" for or against God.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

Of course there is.

I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind.

It contradicts mainstream scientific theory, which indicates that every instant of the universe is caused by a previous instant of the universe, meaning there is no instant of the universe created by god.

[The Scientific States]

I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind.

It contradicts mainstream scientific theory, which indicates that every instant of the universe is caused by a previous instant of the universe, meaning there is no instant of the universe created by god.

That's not proof.

[Zottistan]

I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind.

You'd like to hear proof that there is no God?

Yes.

I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind.

It contradicts mainstream scientific theory, which indicates that every instant of the universe is caused by a previous instant of the universe, meaning there is no instant of the universe created by god.

That doesn't mean that a god-like being doesn't exist within the universe.